- Access by Xinjiang University
Nuclear Peak Energies
Phys. Rev. 120, 2155 – Published 15 December, 1960
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.120.2155
Abstract
The peak energies of electric dipole giant resonances in photonuclear reactions considerably exceed the shell-model spacings in the same nuclei: The discrepancy is of order unity, although the giant resonances are supposed to arise mainly from transitions of nucleons between successive shells. The present note attempts to understand by noting that and considering sum rule expressions for the harmonic energy . These sum rule expressions are well known to yield , where is special to the operator and the charge exchange component of nuclear forces. Theoretical and empirical arguments are adduced that () comprises mainly , plus two secondary corrections which happen practically to cancel. Comparison with experiment gives a constant Mev and thence a satisfactory account of . Previous discussions of appear to have neglected and hence have failed to obtain even the right order of magnitude of for real nuclei. The use of a constant also allows an improved fit to the curve of as a function of . It is pointed out that the value of is comparable in significance with the average nuclear potential : By virtue of the excitation mode, represents the difference of even-parity and odd-parity two-nucleon interactions, while represents a sum of even and odd interactions. The effective mass for the model ground-state wave function is treated as a derived quantity and turns out to be ; this large value is attributed to a Thomas shift associated with finite nuclear boundaries.
References (18)
- D. H. Wilkinson, Physica 22, 1039 (1956)
- J. P. Schiffer, L. L. Lee, Jr., and B. Zeidman, Phys. Rev. 115, 427 (1959)
- B. L. Cohen and R. E. Price, Nuclear Phys. 17, 129 (1960)
- D. H. Wilkinson, Annual Review of Nuclear Science (Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California, 1959), Vol. 9, p. 1
- G. E. Brown and M. Bolsterli, Phys. Rev. Letters 3, 472 (1959)
- K. A. Brueckner and R. Thieberger, Phys. Rev. Letters 4, 466 (1960)
- F. C. Barker, Phil. Mag. 2, 780 (1957)
- J. S. Levinger, N. Austern, and P. Morrison, Nuclear Phys. 3, 456 (1957)
- [7]
- J. S. Levinger, Phys. Rev. 97, 122 (1955)
- R. Montalbetti et al., Phys. Rev. 91, 659 (1953) J. Goldemburg and L. Katz, Can. J. Phys. 32, 49 (1954) R. Nathans and J. Halpern, Phys. Rev. 93, 437 (1954) R. Nathans and P. F. Yergin, 98, 1296 (1955) P. F. Yergin and B. P. Fabricand, 104, 1334 (1956) G. A. Ferguson et al., 95, 776 (1954) E. G. Fuller et al., 112, 554 (1958) J. H. Carver and K. H. Lokan, Australian J. Phys. 10, 312 (1957) J. H. Carver and W. Turchinetz, Proc. Phys. Soc. (London) A73, 69, 110 and 589 (1959) P. Axel and J. D. Fox, Phys. Rev. 102, 400 (1956) M. B. Scott et al., 100, 209 (1955)
- B. L. Cohen, J. B. Mead, R. E. Price, K. S. Quisenberry, and C. Martz, Phys. Rev. 118, 499 (1960)
- R. Karplus and K. M. Watson, Am. J. Phys. 25, 641 (1957)
Omitted endnote
- K. A. Brueckner and J. L. Gammel, Phys. Rev. 109, 1023 (1958)
- A. M. Lane and R. G. Thomas, Revs. Modern Phys. 30, 257 (1958)
- F. C. Barker (private communication)
- J. Fujita, Progr. Theoret. Phys. (Kyoto) 16, 112 (1956)